My. Tesco Android Signal Is Poor
Technology3 mins ago
Pleading Not Guilty ??????????????
67 Answers
http://
Have these two 'a cat in hells' chance of being found not guilty?
/// Adebolajo and Adebowale asked to be addressed by their adopted Islamic names of Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah respectively. ///
/// After hearing submissions from the two barristers representing the defendants, the court allowed them to be called by their Muslim names as well. ///
More kowtowing it would seem.
Have these two 'a cat in hells' chance of being found not guilty?
/// Adebolajo and Adebowale asked to be addressed by their adopted Islamic names of Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah respectively. ///
/// After hearing submissions from the two barristers representing the defendants, the court allowed them to be called by their Muslim names as well. ///
More kowtowing it would seem.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have dismissed only the change of name point as nonsense because you view it as "kowtowing". It is not kowtowing. I regularly used to do battle with one of the local career criminals and almost every time she appeared in Court she used another name.
Benny suggests that the names on their passports should be used. Well until last week, the name on my passport was my former married name - having since adopted a new name for all purposes (I simply never got around to updating my passport). Had I had the misfortune to be charged with an offence - I would fully have expected for my new adopted name to have been used - as it would have been. I wouldn't have viewed it as kowtowing, I'd have viewed it as my right, legally, to be known as the name I choose to adopt.
The fact is, their choice of name will not in any way affect justice being done. Indeed, I would expect most of the evidence to be eyewitness evidence and since it is unlikely that any of the witnesses will have known their names at the time they watched that horrific act this is a red herring. The eyewitnesses will give evidence in terms of the descriptions that they gave - ie "the taller man did this", "the man with the red jumper did that".
Benny suggests that the names on their passports should be used. Well until last week, the name on my passport was my former married name - having since adopted a new name for all purposes (I simply never got around to updating my passport). Had I had the misfortune to be charged with an offence - I would fully have expected for my new adopted name to have been used - as it would have been. I wouldn't have viewed it as kowtowing, I'd have viewed it as my right, legally, to be known as the name I choose to adopt.
The fact is, their choice of name will not in any way affect justice being done. Indeed, I would expect most of the evidence to be eyewitness evidence and since it is unlikely that any of the witnesses will have known their names at the time they watched that horrific act this is a red herring. The eyewitnesses will give evidence in terms of the descriptions that they gave - ie "the taller man did this", "the man with the red jumper did that".
Changing your name is possible in the UK by deed poll, but not in many other countries, I believe it is not possible in Germany for example other than by marriage. Cassius Clay said his name was changed to Muhammad Ali, but I think his American passport and tax returns would have been under his birth name - though I stand to be corrected.
Theoretically Khandro, you don't even need to do a formal act such as a statutory declaration or Deed poll. You can just start using whatever name you choose. You could just wake up in the morning and say "from now on I wish to be known as Osama Bin Laden" (bit stupid, I know). In reality though most official bodies (HMRC, Passport Agency, DVLA etc) will require some formality and so a formal document will be needed to evidence that change.
THECORBYLOON
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, why are you so upset about their using Islamic names?
Because their names are Michael Adebolajo, and Michael Adebowale and not Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah, having two or more different names may be beneficial in claiming more than one's persons benefits, or gaining more than one election vote, but there is no place for them in a British court of law.
Why not Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would that be allowed?
Incidentally there is no need to 'Shout' my user-name, because it is rude to do so.
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, why are you so upset about their using Islamic names?
Because their names are Michael Adebolajo, and Michael Adebowale and not Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah, having two or more different names may be beneficial in claiming more than one's persons benefits, or gaining more than one election vote, but there is no place for them in a British court of law.
Why not Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would that be allowed?
Incidentally there is no need to 'Shout' my user-name, because it is rude to do so.
I am sure Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be allowed. And if they were referred to in Court by the lawyers they would undoubtedly be called Mr Mouse and Mr Duck.
Whereas people who knew them and were giving evidence would call them Mickey and Don.
The only time it would be necessary to use full names would be at the beginning of trial at identification, at announcing of the verdict and at sentence.
Whereas people who knew them and were giving evidence would call them Mickey and Don.
The only time it would be necessary to use full names would be at the beginning of trial at identification, at announcing of the verdict and at sentence.
/// After hearing submissions from the two barristers representing the defendants, the court allowed them to be called by their Muslim names as well. ///
// More kowtowing it would seem. //
Millions of people use. Name they were not born with. It may be females changing it through marriage, it may be by deed poll or just a person adopts a different name for business or political purposes.
The London Mayor is Alexander Johnson.
The ex-Chancellor is James Brown.
The Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps uses several alaises for his business work.
These two alledged murderers are no longer christians, so they don't want their christian names. Using their adopted names is not pandering, it is a courtesy extended to everyone.
What is nonsense is you objecting because it is a muslim doing it.
// More kowtowing it would seem. //
Millions of people use. Name they were not born with. It may be females changing it through marriage, it may be by deed poll or just a person adopts a different name for business or political purposes.
The London Mayor is Alexander Johnson.
The ex-Chancellor is James Brown.
The Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps uses several alaises for his business work.
These two alledged murderers are no longer christians, so they don't want their christian names. Using their adopted names is not pandering, it is a courtesy extended to everyone.
What is nonsense is you objecting because it is a muslim doing it.
But isn't that the point? Your name is yours, and it's what you choose it to be. That right applies to everybody. And therefore it *does* have a place in an English Court of Law that they have the ability, and the right, to choose how they will be known. Perhaps you can argue that they are abusing that right, but it is still theirs. And technically until the sentence is pronounced they are (at least thought of as) innocent, so have the rights of the innocent.
I hope most of the above is correct, and will defer to Barmaid/ another expert, if they disagree.
I hope most of the above is correct, and will defer to Barmaid/ another expert, if they disagree.
ANOTHEOLDGIT, using capitals for names is something I did for yonks but stopped and now I've started it again. There are many posts and names mentioned in them and I think it helps to draw attention to a name by using capitals. There is no intention to be rude, it is only convention that capitals are "shouting" and no-one objected when I did it years ago or now so I will continue to do so. Getting back to the names in court, would you rather time an money were spent debating in court the rights and wrongs of the names being used or would you prefer time and money being spent on dealing with guilt or innocence?
https:/
let these scum use their muslim names , it will invite even more hatred of them.
I'd be interested to know what the defence lawyers case will be.
how do the lawyers who must be aware of their guilt like most everybody else, defend these filth after they plead not gulty ?
As to their names they should be called whatever is already currently on official documents, , eg passport , driving licence etc, the name that they are indentified by law as.
let these scum use their muslim names , it will invite even more hatred of them.
I'd be interested to know what the defence lawyers case will be.
how do the lawyers who must be aware of their guilt like most everybody else, defend these filth after they plead not gulty ?
As to their names they should be called whatever is already currently on official documents, , eg passport , driving licence etc, the name that they are indentified by law as.
baz - "how do the lawyers who must be aware of their guilt like most everybody else, defend these filth after they plead not gulty ?"
Because that is their job.
In order for a balanced justice system to work effectively, there must be a Prosecution and a Defence.
Burden of proof lies with the Prosecution, and the Defence must do all in its power to defend the accused as innocent.
A judge or a jury will make a decision based on the evidence from both sides, and form a verdict which will lead to a pre-determined sentence.
It may well be onorous for the defending council in this, and indeed many other cases, but defence still needs presented in order for the balance of justice to work properly.
That's the difference between a trial and a lynching.
Because that is their job.
In order for a balanced justice system to work effectively, there must be a Prosecution and a Defence.
Burden of proof lies with the Prosecution, and the Defence must do all in its power to defend the accused as innocent.
A judge or a jury will make a decision based on the evidence from both sides, and form a verdict which will lead to a pre-determined sentence.
It may well be onorous for the defending council in this, and indeed many other cases, but defence still needs presented in order for the balance of justice to work properly.
That's the difference between a trial and a lynching.
//how do the lawyers who must be aware of their guilt like most everybody else, defend these filth after they plead not gulty ? //
It is not for the lawyers to judge the client - that is the function of the jury. The lawyers will assess the evidence and advise as to the likely outcome. If the client decides not to follow the advice, the lawyer will still represent him to the best of his/her ability. At the Bar the "cab rank" rule still applies - thus if you are instructed on a case by a solicitor, you are obliged to take it unless certain exceptions apply. Those exceptions most definitely DO NOT include "because I think he is guilty", "because he is a muslim", "because I don't like his views on life".
Even if you find your client and his crimes or alleged crimes abhorrent, still you must do that job. To do anything else puts you in breach of the Bar Code of Conduct and harsh sanctions apply.
IF a client tells the lawyer that he did it, intended to do it and was fully cognisant of what he was doing, the lawyer cannot then put forwards a positive case to the contrary. If instructed by the client to put forwards a positive case to the contrary the lawyer is professionally embarrassed and should retire from the case.
It is not for the lawyers to judge the client - that is the function of the jury. The lawyers will assess the evidence and advise as to the likely outcome. If the client decides not to follow the advice, the lawyer will still represent him to the best of his/her ability. At the Bar the "cab rank" rule still applies - thus if you are instructed on a case by a solicitor, you are obliged to take it unless certain exceptions apply. Those exceptions most definitely DO NOT include "because I think he is guilty", "because he is a muslim", "because I don't like his views on life".
Even if you find your client and his crimes or alleged crimes abhorrent, still you must do that job. To do anything else puts you in breach of the Bar Code of Conduct and harsh sanctions apply.
IF a client tells the lawyer that he did it, intended to do it and was fully cognisant of what he was doing, the lawyer cannot then put forwards a positive case to the contrary. If instructed by the client to put forwards a positive case to the contrary the lawyer is professionally embarrassed and should retire from the case.
[ We plead 'Not guilty'.
Our actions were justified because your soldiers have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in our countries. ]
Of course they are guilty of this murder. The plea is so they have a platform to make a point to the court and a worldwide audience. If they plea 'Not Guilty' their justifications will not be heard.
Our actions were justified because your soldiers have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in our countries. ]
Of course they are guilty of this murder. The plea is so they have a platform to make a point to the court and a worldwide audience. If they plea 'Not Guilty' their justifications will not be heard.
